According to pages 357-359 of "Siegbert Tarrasch Leben und Werk" by Wolfgang Kamm (Unterhaching, 2004) Dr. Tarrasch converted from Judaism to Christianity on May 28, 1909.

<The greatest mistake in chess is to overestimate your opponent.>

-- Siegbert Tarrasch

Richard Reti, 1922:

< The occasion of Dr. Tarrasch's 60-th birthday allows me to repay a part of an old, heavy debt. Together with other young masters, I searched new paths in chess and I fought long and hard against the masters of old, not only over the board, but also by my pen and ink. And I fought primarily against Dr. Tarrasch, for in him I saw then and I see now the very paragon of chess of his era.

Yet I also have had a guilty conscience that I, a young person, have so often lead an attack against this man, who can look back upon a life full of activity and accomplishments, who in his own youth was a great innovator, and from whom we have learned so much. Thus I have looked for an opportunity to ease my conscience and say, as well as I can, what Tarrasch has meant for chess. I do not know if I am the most appropriate person to do so, but I do feel to be the most obligated one.

--- a long background on state of chess art during Steinitz years ---

...Tarrasch's biggest chess contribution was that he combined the technique of Steinitz with an otherwise common chess practice of fast development (Steinitz had a tendency to neglect that). Thus Tarrasch created a playing style that remains a fundamental cornerstone of chess till this day.

Tarrasch further developed another branch of Steinitz research, that of correct handling of cramped position of an opponent. That is not a trite or trifling aspect of Steinitz teaching. Oh, contraire! Quite possibly, spatial advantage may be the most important of Steinitz positional advantages because most other types of positional edge, such the advantage of two bishops or a complex of weak squares, can transform into spatial gains. We shall remind ourselves that most of the famous tournament wins of Maroczy, Schlechter, Teichmann, and many others came as the result of a progressive crowding of their opponent; thus we will realize also here the degree of critical influence of Dr Tarrasch on the chess development of his time.

The impact of Dr. Tarrasch comes not only from his practical chess activities, but also from his literary writings. In a sharp contrast to other masters who kept their methods secret, Tarrasch always shared his theories, his way of thinking, and he put them up for a debate. .... Perhaps his accomplishment could have been even greater -- and they were grand indeed -- had Tarrasch not shared all of his discoveries. But our descendants, who will certainly not only value chess as a sport, but rather will view it as an art form, will surely appreciate Dr. Tarrasch not only according to his results -- and those were great -- but still more according to the intrinsic content of his contribution.

...

Tarrasch always valued his beloved chess. And he always lead a life of a high priest of the art!

Tarrasch vs Schlechter, 1894

Tarrasch vs G Marco, 1898

Tarrasch vs Walbrodt, 1898

The combination went as follows, with Dr. Tarrasch playing White:

<1) White sacrificed a piece for the Black f7-pawn

2) White sacrificed a piece for the Black h7-pawn

3) Ng6# as the g6-square was now undefended>

It looked something like this:

click for larger view

1 e5xf7+! d7xf7 2 d3xh7+! f8xh7 3 f4-g6#

click for larger view

No, that is not it. But thanks for the effort.

<Whatever you think of Tarrasch's wins [at Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890, Dresden 1892, and Leipzig 1894], the fact is that they were more impressive those specific years than anything Lasker was doing.>

Not really. They both had very good results.

Obviously 27-year-old Tarrasch winning the main tournament at Breslau 1889 was better than 20-year-old Lasker winning the cadet tournament. But after that...in 1890 Lasker beat Mieses +5-0=3. Then he went to England and beat Bird +5-2=1. He also beat Englisch in a short match. Englisch was past his prime, but managed to draw a short match with Pillsbury six years later.

In 1892 Lasker won a strong tournament over Gunsburg (who had recently lost a title match), Blackburne, Mason and Bird. This was probably about the same strength as Tarrasch's international tournaments, though of course those had more participants. Lasker also won a weaker London tournament over Mason among others. More importantly, he routed Blackburne (+6-0=4) and Bird (+5-0=0) in matches. Then he went to America and decisively defeated Showalter (+6-2=1). Showalter, remember, gave Pillsbury all he could handle in matches at the end of the decade. In 1893, Lasker swept several matches in Cuba and scored a +13-0=0 triumph at a medium-strength tournament in New York.

In 1894, of course, Lasker beat Steinitz +10-5=4.

Apart from the international tournaments and the Chigorin match, during this time Tarrasch also beat Taubenhaus (1891) and Walbrodt (1894, +7-0=1) in matches.

1889
Amsterdam - 1. Burn 7; 2. Lasker 6.

1890
Berlin: shared 1st place with Berthold Lasker. They drew their play-off game. 1 point over the field.

Graz: 1. Makovetz 5; 2. Bauer 4.5; 3. Lasker 4.

1892
London B.C.A.: 1st with 2 points over the field.
London Masters: 1st with half a point over Blackburne.

1889
Bardeleben +2=1-1

1889-90
Mieses +5=3-0

1890
Bird +7=3-2
Miniati +3=2-0
Englisch +2=3-0

1891
Lee +1=1-0

1892
Blackburne +6=4-0
Bird +5=0-0

Match series against leading players of Manhattan CC:

Hanham +3=0-0
Simonson +2=0-1
Baird, D.G. +3=0-0
Isaacson +3=0-0
Hodges +2=0-1
Delmar +2=1-0
Ryan +3=0-0
Baird, J.W. +3=0-0

Match series against leading players of Brooklyn CC:

Blackmar +2=0-0
DeVisser +2=0-0
Richardson +1=1-0

Match series against leading players of Franklin CC:

Martinez +2=0-0
Robinson +2=0-0
Reichhelm +2=0-0
Shipley +1=0-1
Voight +2=0-0

<AnalyzeThis> Who's excited?

<I'm just saying that Tarrasch did enjoy a brief period where he may have been the best player in the world, at some point in the 1880's.>

Hmmm, I wonder when.

He finished in a massive pileup behind Isidor Gunsberg at Hamburg 1885, so not then. He took 1886 off. He finished in a tie for 5th at Frankfurt 1887, so it wasn't then. He had a minus score at Leipzig 1888, which rules out 1888 (though he did win a minor tournament that year).

He finally won a strong tournament by finishing a point and a half ahead of second-place Amos Burn at Breslau 1889.

vs. Chigorin, Tarrasch had +2 over 34 games while Lasker scored +7 in 21; vs. Akiba Rubinstein Tarrasch was -8 without a single win, while Lasker scored +2-1=2; vs. David Janowski Tarrasch scored +3 compared to Lasker's huge +22; vs. Geza Maroczy, Tarrasch was +1 over 16 games while Lasker scored +4-0=1, vs. Richard Teichmann Tarrasch scored +8-5=2, while Lasker beat him all four tournament games.

The case seems solid enough that the good Doctor was not quite a match for Lasker. But around the turn of the century I'm sure he would have given it a better go.